Advertisement

The Common Ingroup Identity Model and the Development of a Functional Perspective: A Cross-National Collaboration

  • Sam GaertnerEmail author
  • Rita Guerra
  • Margarida Rebelo
  • John Dovidio
  • Erick Hehman
  • Mathew Deegan
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter proposes a new, functional approach to the understanding of how effectively prejudice can be reduced among members of majority and minority groups. According to the functional perspective, derived from the Common Ingroup Identity Model, groups prefer and adopt the representation that most effectively promotes their group’s goals. Majority groups generally prefer a one-group representation (e.g., we are all on the same team) because it deflects attention away from disparities between groups and reduces subgroup identification, thereby reducing the likelihood of collective action that challenges the status quo. By contrast, minority groups prefer a dual identity (e.g., we are minority and majority group members on the same team) because it recognizes group distinctiveness, drawing attention to group disparities, which can motivate both majority and minority group members to mobilize to address injustices. However, contradicting these findings, results obtained in the US and in Portugal required and inspired the development of the functional approach presented in this chapter. It emphasizes the importance of taking into account the larger social and historical context when considering the groups’ interests as causing and motivating group members’ preferences for one-group or dual identity representations, and that these preferences of majorities and minorities are more flexible than we previously thought.

Keywords

Common ingroup identity Dual identity Functional approach of intergroup relations Ethnic minorities Ethnic majorities 

Notes

Aknowledgments

Preparation of this chapter was supported by NSF Grant # BCS-0613218 awarded to Samuel L. Gaertner and John F. Dovidio.

References

  1. Abrams, D. (1985). Focus of attention in minimal intergroup discrimination. British Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 65–74.Google Scholar
  2. Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (2010). Social identity and self-categorization. In J. F. Dovidio, J. H. Hewstone, P. Glick, & V. M. Esses (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination (pp. 179–193). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  4. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. New York: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  5. Brewer, M. B. (1979). Ingroup bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brewer, M. B. (1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In T. Srull & R. Wyer (Eds.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. 1, pp. 1–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  7. Brewer, M. B. (2000). Reducing prejudice through cross-categorization: Effects of multiple social identities. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination: The claremont symposium on applied social psychology (pp. 165–183). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Brewer, M. B., & Miller, N. (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on desegregation. In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation (pp. 281–302). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Campbell, D. T. (1958). Common fate, similarity and other indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Science, 3, 14–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Campbell, D. T. (1965). Ethnocentric and other altruistic motives. In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (Vol. 13, pp. 283–311). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
  11. Castelli, L., Tomelleri, S., & Zogmaister, C. (2008). Implicit ingroup metafavoritism: Subtle preference for ingroup members displaying ingroup bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 807–818.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Crisp, R. J., Walsh, J., & Hewstone, M. (2006). Crossed categorization in common ingroup contexts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1204–1218.Google Scholar
  13. Doise, W. (1978). Groups and individuals: Explanations in social psychology. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2004). Aversive racism. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 36, pp. 1–51). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  15. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Saguy, T. (2009). Commonality and the complexity of “we”: Social attitudes and social change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 3–20.Google Scholar
  16. Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2010). Intergroup bias. In S. T. Fiske, D. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, 5th ed., pp. 1084–1121). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Kawakami, K. (Eds) (2003). Group processes and intergroup relations. Special Issue: Intergroup Contact.Google Scholar
  18. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Niemann, Y. F., & Snider, K. (2001). Racial, ethnic, and cultural differences in responding to distinctiveness and discrimination on campus: Stigma and common group identity. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 167–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Validzic, A., Matoka, K., Johnson, B., & Frazier, S. (1997). Extending the benefits of re-categorization: Evaluations, self-disclosure and helping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 401–420.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Esses, V. M., Wagner, U., Wolf, C., Preiser, M., & Wilbur, C. J. (2006). Perceptions of national identity and attitudes toward immigrants and immigration in Canada and Germany. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 30, 653–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Feagin, J. R. (1978). Race and ethnic relations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  22. Fiske, S. T., Lin, M., & Neuberg, S. L. (1999). The continuum model: Ten years later. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 211–254). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  23. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (2007). Social cognition: From brains to culture. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  24. Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1986). The aversive form of racism. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 61–89). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  25. Gaertner, S. L., Bachman, B. A., Dovidio, J. D., & Banker, B. S. (2001). Corporate mergers and stepfamily marriages: Identity, harmony, and commitment. In M. A. Hogg & D. Terry (Eds.), Social identity in organizations (pp. 265–282). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  26. Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model. Philadelphia, PA: The Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  27. Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2009). A common ingroup identity: A categorization-based approach for reducing intergroup bias. In T. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice. (pp. 489–506). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  28. Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Anastasio, P. A., Bachman, B. A., & Rust, M. C. (1993). The common ingroup identity model: Recategorization and the reduction of intergroup bias. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 1–26). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  29. Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J., Murrell, A., & Dovidio, J. F. (1989). Reducing intergroup bias: The benefits of recategorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 239–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gaertner, S. L., Riek, B. M., Mania, E. W., & Dovidio, J. F. (2007) When does a dual identity reduce intergroup bias? In R. J. Brown, D. Carpozza., & O. Licciardello (Eds.), Contact hypothesis and immigrant acculturation (pp. 19–31). Rome: Franco Angeli.Google Scholar
  31. Gaertner, S. L., Rust, M. C., Dovidio, J. F., Bachman, B. A., & Anastasio, P. A. (1996). The contact hypothesis: The role of a common ingroup identity on reducing intergroup bias among majority and minority group members. In J. L. Nye & A. M. Brower (Eds.), What’s social about social cognition? (pp. 230–360). Newbury.Google Scholar
  32. González, R., & Brown, R. (2003). Generalization of positive attitude as a function of subgroup and superordinate group identification in intergroup contact. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 195–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. González, R., & Brown, R. (2006). Dual identities and intergroup contact: Group status and size moderate the generalization of positive attitude change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 753–767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Guerra, R., Rebelo, M., & Monteiro, M. B. (2004, June). Changing intergroup relations: Effects of recategorization, decategorization and dual identity in the reduction of intergroup discrimination. Paper presented at Change in Intergroup Relations: 7th Jena Workshop on Intergroup Processes, Friedricht Schiller University, Jena.Google Scholar
  35. Guerra, R., Rebelo, M., Monteiro, M. B., Riek, B. M., Maia, E. W., Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2010). How should intergroup contact be structured to reduce bias among majority and minority group children? Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 13, 445–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Guerra, R., Rebelo, M., Monteiro, M. B., & Gaertner, S. L. (2013). Translating recategorization strategies into an anti-bias educational intervention. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 14–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Hehman, E., Gaertner, S. L., Dovidio, J. F., Mania, E. W., Guerra, R., Wilson, D. C., & Friel, B. M. (2012). Group status drives majority and minority integration preferences. Psychological Science, 23, 46–52.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Hogg, M. A. & Hains, S. C. (1998). Friendship and group identification: a new look at the role of cohesiveness in groupthink. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 323–341.Google Scholar
  39. Howard, J. M., & Rothbart, M. (1980). Social categorization for in-group and out-group behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 301–310.Google Scholar
  40. Insko, C. A., Schopler, J., Gaertner, L., Wildschut, T., Kozar, R. Pinter, B., et al. (2001). Interindividual-intergroup discontinuity reduction through the anticipation of future interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 95–111.Google Scholar
  41. Jones, J. M. (1997). Prejudice and racism (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  42. Kovel, J. (1970). White racism: A psychohistory. New York: Pantheon.Google Scholar
  43. Mahajan, N., Martinez, M. A., Gutierrez, N. L., Diesendruck, G., Banaji, M. R., & Santos, L. R. (2011). The evolution of intergroup bias: Perceptions and attitudes in rhesus macaques. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 387–405.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Maurício, I., & Monteiro, M. B. (2003). Cape-Verdean adolescents living in Portugal: Levels of national and ethnic identity and social integration. In A. Ross (Ed.), A Europe of many cultures (pp. 123–129). London: CiCe Publications.Google Scholar
  45. Miller, N. (2002). Personalization and the promise of contact theory. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 387–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mouro, C. (2003). Estratégias de gestão da identidade e percepção de variabilidade intragrupal em adolescentes portugueses de origem cabo-verdiana (Unpublished master thesis). Lisbon: ISCTE.Google Scholar
  47. Mullen, B., & Hu, L. T. (1989). Perceptions of ingroup and outgroup variability: A meta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 10, 233–252.Google Scholar
  48. Mummendey, A., & Wenzel, M. (1999). Social discrimination and tolerance in intergroup relations: Reactions to intergroup difference. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 158–174.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Otten, S., & Moskowitz, G. G. (2000). Evidence for implicit evaluative in-group bias: Affect-based spontaneous trait inference in a minimal group paradigm. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 3, 77–89.Google Scholar
  50. Paladino, M.-P., & Castelli, L. (2008). On the immediate consequences of ingroup categorization: Activation of approach and avoidance motor behavior toward ingroup and outgroup members. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 755–768.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Park, B., & Rothbart, M. (1982). Perception of out-group homogeneity and levels of social categorization: Memory for the subordinate attributes of in-group and out-group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1051–1068.Google Scholar
  52. Pettigrew, T. & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783.Google Scholar
  53. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2011). When groups meet: The dynamics of intergroup contact. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  54. Rebelo, M., Guerra, R. & Monteiro, M. B. (2004, June). Reducing prejudice: Comparative effects of three theoretical models. Paper presented at the Fifth Biennial Convention of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  55. Rebelo, M., Guerra, R., & Monteiro, M. B. (2005, July). Generalising positive intergroup relations in realistic settings: A comparison among recategorization, decategorization and dual identity models. Paper presented at the XIV General Meeting of the European Association of Experimental Social Psychology, Wurzburg, Germany.Google Scholar
  56. Schofield, J. W. (1986). Causes and consequences of the colorblind perspective. In S. Gaertner & J. Dovidio (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination and racism: Theory and practice. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  57. Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Book Exchange.Google Scholar
  58. Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2010). Affective processes. In J. F. Dovidio, J. H. Hewstone, P. Glick, & V. M. Esses (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination (pp. 131–145). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Tajfel, H. (1969). Cognitive aspects of prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 25(4), 79–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–48). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  61. Tropp, L. R., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2005). Relationship between intergroup contact and prejudice among minority and majority status groups. Psychological Science, 16, 951–957.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Turner, J. C. (1975). Social comparison and social identity: Some prospects for intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 5–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Turner, J. C. (1985). Social categorization and the self-concept: A social cognitive theory of group behavior. In E. J. Lawler (Ed.), Advances in group processes (Vol. 2, pp. 77-122). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  64. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D. & Wetherell, M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell. Google Scholar
  65. Tyler, T., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The Group Engagement Model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7, 349–361.Google Scholar
  66. Waldzus, S., Mummendey, A., Wenzel, M., & Boettcher, F. (2004). Of bikers, teachers and Germans: Groups’ diverging views about their prototypicality. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 385–400.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Wilder, D. A. (1981). Perceiving persons as a group: Categorization and intergroup relations. In D. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior (pp. 213–257). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  68. Worchel, S., Rothgerber, H., Day, E. A., Hart, D., & Butemeyer, J. (1998). Social identity and individual productivity within groups. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 389–413. Google Scholar
  69. Wright, S.C. & Lubensky, M. (2009). The struggle for social equality: Collective action versus prejudice reduction. In S. Demoulin, J. P. Leyens & J. F. Dovidio (Eds.), Intergroup misunderstandings: Impact of divergent social realities (pp. 291–310). New York: Psychology Press. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sam Gaertner
    • 1
    Email author
  • Rita Guerra
    • 2
  • Margarida Rebelo
    • 3
  • John Dovidio
    • 4
  • Erick Hehman
    • 5
  • Mathew Deegan
    • 1
  1. 1.University of DelawareNewarkUSA
  2. 2.Instituto Universitário de Lisboa (ISCTE-IUL), CIS-IULLisbonPortugal
  3. 3.National Laboratory of Civil Engineering (LNEC)LisbonPortugal
  4. 4.Yale UniversityNew HavenUSA
  5. 5.Dartmouth CollegeHanoverUSA

Personalised recommendations